• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama Repeats the Policies of Clinton' Sub-Prime Push..

Fenton

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 17, 2012
Messages
29,771
Reaction score
12,231
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Obama administration pushes banks to make home loans to people with weaker credit - Washington Post

" The Obama administration is engaged in a broad push to make more home loans available to people with weaker credit, an effort that officials say will help power the economic recovery but that skeptics say could open the door to the risky lending that caused the housing crash in the first place.

President Obama’s economic advisers and outside experts say the nation’s much-celebrated housing rebound is leaving too many people behind, including young people looking to buy their first homes and individuals with credit records weakened by the recession.

In response, administration officials say they are working to get banks to lend to a wider range of borrowers by taking advantage of taxpayer-backed programs — including those offered by the Federal Housing Administration — that insure home loans against default."


Housing officials are urging the Justice Department to provide assurances to banks, which have become increasingly cautious, that they will not face legal or financial recriminations if they make loans to riskier borrowers who meet government standards but later default.

“I think the ability of newly formed households, which are more likely to have lower incomes or weaker credit scores, to access the mortgage market will make a big difference in the shape of the recovery,” Duke said last month. “Economic improvement will cause household formation to increase, but if credit is hard to get, these will be rental rather than owner-occupied households.”"

Ridiculous.

Before Obama became a State Senator, he shook down banks for " discriminatory practices". In 1995 he was plaintiffs attorney for “Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank.” and was listed as the lead attorney for several of the plaintiffs.


Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank Fair Housing/Lending/Insurance
Docket / Court 94 C 4094 ( N.D. Ill. ) FH-IL-0011
State/Territory IllinoisCase Summary

"Plaintiffs filed their class action lawsuit on July 6, 1994, alleging that Citibank had engaged in redlining practices in the Chicago metropolitan area in violation of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA), 15 U.S.C. 1691; the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. 3601-3619; the Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution; and 42 U.S.C. 1981, 1982. Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendant-bank rejected loan applications of minority applicants while approving loan applications filed by white applicants with similar financial characteristics and credit histories. Plaintiffs sought injunctive relief, actual damages, and punitive damages.U.S. District Court Judge Ruben Castillo certified the Plaintiffs’ suit as a class action on June 30, 1995. Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank, 162 F.R.D. 322 (N.D. Ill. 1995). Also on June 30, Judge Castillo granted Plaintiffs’ motion to compel discovery of a sample of Defendant-bank’s loan application files. Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed."

Many of the plaintiffs came away with "coupons" and small cash disbursements.

But whats alarming was the addition Obama's administration made to the massive bailout that was the Federal Government taking Fannie and Freddie into Conervatorhip in 2008. Together they held over 5 and half TRILLION dollars in loans and securities, many low quality traSh loans and securities they purchased in an effort to hide the massive corruption that was taking place at the two GSE's, Corruption that led to a SEC investigation in 2004 and a SEC investigation in 2011 for massive securities fraud.


" The Obama Administration used the 2009 Christmas media lull for several key mortgage-market agenda items, on top of the its Congressional health care legislation.

1) On Christmas Eve the Obama Administration issued executive orders to change the amount – from $400 billion to unlimited — that the US federal government would commit to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in the event those agencies/companies could no longer service the mortgages it held/guaranteed. It also deregulated the total amount of mortgages that Fannie and Freddie can own or guarantee, enabling the GSEs to fully return to the lower-quality, higher-risk segments of the mortgage market. Fannie and Freddie currently finance roughly three-quarters of all new mortgages. The order empowers the Obama Administration’s Treasury Department to pressure the GSEs to hold more subprime/non-performing mortgages, instead of clearing the risk off their balance sheets.


2) The Obama “Pay Czar” made public statements supporting multi-million-dollar incentive-based compensation packages for senior Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac executives…despite exactly that structure having been singled out by regulators as a primary cause of the GSE violations that enabled the housing/financial crisis. The Obama Administration is incentivizing Fannie’s and Freddie’s CEOs with up to $6 million per year, and senior executives can also receive hefty cash payouts under a similar target-based structure as existed during the bubble. Both companies/agencies currently operate under taxpayer-funded bailout. The Pay Czar cited the unique stresses of the jobs, despite the fact that they can now make roughly 12-times more than the President of the United States."


On top of this, Obama's wants to appoint a Democrat Politician, Mel Watt, to run Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. This is truly a case of the" Fox guarding the hen house" as Mel Watt is a member of the House Congressional Black Caucus which supports the same policies that almost bankrupted the banking sector and helped created millions of home foreclosures and has zero regulatory experience.

His appointment would virtually guarantee a return to the corruption that allowed Fannie and Freddie's massive debt to be added to our Country's already exploding debt.
 
Wow, that's just great. Let's see Act Two, and it will probably cause a crash during a Republican term in the white house, then all the idiots can scream and cry about how Republicans caused it again. Jesus H. Christ, people never learn.
 
Wow, that's just great. Let's see Act Two, and it will probably cause a crash
during a Republican term in the white house, then all the idiots can scream and cry about how Republicans caused it again. Jesus H. Christ, people never learn.

The current head of Fannie and Freddie has actually tightened things up a bit and has tried to institute the same type of standards that allowed those two GSEs to operate for decades without facing insolvency.

Mel Watt is going to be a disaster. Another Politician. Obama should just skip all pretense and appoint Franklin Raines again.
 
Yeah....look at those huge sales numbers:

new-family-home-sales.png


Yawn....

PS...the banks are buying up EXISTING low priced homes, individual buyers....not so much.
 
Yeah....look at those huge sales numbers:

new-family-home-sales.png


Yawn....

PS...the banks are buying up EXISTING low priced homes, individual buyers....not so much.

Your little chart there.... NEW homes. Exactly how many sub-prime borrowers can afford a NEW home? Likely they are buying existing homes.

Banks don't want more homes, they are dumping them for as much as they can get for the ones that they have to take. Around here, negotiations on bank owned homes are rather easy, as the banks just wants the liability off their records and restore some of the liquidity in their reserves.
 
Your little chart there.... NEW homes. Exactly how many sub-prime borrowers can afford a NEW home? Likely they are buying existing homes.

Banks don't want more homes, they are dumping them for as much as they can get for the ones that they have to take. Around here, negotiations on bank owned homes are rather easy, as the banks just wants the liability off their records and restore some of the liquidity in their reserves.
Go ahead and show the first time buyers are out-purchasing existing homes as compared to investor/bank buyers.

The run-up in prices, especially low priced existing homes, has been by investor/banks....not first time/owner occupied purchases. Cash sales have been the driver over the last couple of years.
 
Go ahead and show the first time buyers are out-purchasing existing homes as compared to investor/bank buyers.

The run-up in prices, especially low priced existing homes, has been by investor/banks....not first time/owner occupied purchases. Cash sales have been the driver over the last couple of years.

No argument on all cash sales being preferred, but that still doesn't mean that the banks are the prevalent buyers.

First-Time Homebuyers Fighting for a Spot in an All-Cash World | The Business Desk with Paul Solman | PBS NewsHour | PBS
 
I do have to agree that new home buyers are having a hard time getting into houses and people are offering straight cash. mostly investors that have sold or rented out their current homes and have been stock piling cash.

The other thing is that banks have upped the standards of getting a home. 80/20 loans are now extinct. you have to have at least 10% in some cases 20% down for a traditional loan. HSA loans are still a better choice for first time home buyers. they usually require only a 3-5% down payment.

they are not as flexible as a traditional loans but are still available.
right now it is a still a good market for first time home buyers.

doing this is only going to create another housing bubble where we will see home values increase 200% of real value.
 
Yeah....look at those huge sales
numbers:

new-family-home-sales.png


Yawn....

PS...the banks are buying up EXISTING low priced homes, individual buyers....not so much.


What ? You mean we're NOT in the midst of a economic " recovery ??

Besides, without complicit and highly corrupt Democrat run GSEs buying up Trillions in securities and loans a bubble is going to be pretty hard to build.

BUT, Obama appoints Mel Watt, and away we go.

Honestly, he should have just dropped all pretense and hired Franklin Raines again.
 
No argument on all cash sales being preferred, but that still doesn't mean that the banks are the prevalent buyers.
"Preferred"?

Uh.....I think the word is "dominant".

What it does argue is that mortgaged buyers are not driving the current price increases, hence no bubble from "policy"....ie the context of the thread.
 
Wow, that's just great. Let's see Act Two, and it will probably cause a crash during a Republican term in the white house, then all the idiots can scream and cry about how Republicans caused it again. Jesus H. Christ, people never learn.

Yup. Last time it took the bubble a number of years to build (like 20?). So it's not going to be the next administration or possibly the one after that. But still, the risk of such calamity increases as long as the progressive / liberal / Democrat policies related to this are driven by their ideology and not the facts of the matter.

This thread is going to explode with deniers.

But of course.

But I'd modify slight in that the toxic mortgage collapse wasn't caused by JUST the NINJA (No Income, No Job, no Assets) mortgages, there had to be follow on actions taken by the system. These originators need to be able to sell these mortgages off, investment banks need to package them into shady financial 'investment' deals, the investment rating agencies need to put bogus ratings on these deals and not know what's in them, and Fannie and Freddie need to buy up these toxic mortgages as well. Are all of those things going to be in the same place and have the same reaction? I'm thinking not, but I also think this is a very, very bad idea.

The current head of Fannie and Freddie has actually tightened things up a bit and has tried to institute the same type of standards that allowed those two GSEs to operate for decades without facing insolvency.

Mel Watt is going to be a disaster. Another Politician. Obama should just skip all pretense and appoint Franklin Raines again.

Won't be the same players, but will be the same ideology of common sense and fact, of that I'm certain.
 
Last edited:

Derp yourself as you take irrelevent sentence fragments out of context.

Towards the bottom of my first post I mentioned Obama's new appointee to head up Fannie and Freddie.

Why would he appoint a Franklin Raines clone ?

So Obama's trying to finish them off as the Treasury soaks up trillions in their worthless debt ?

Leave it to the Democrats to bury dzcades old American institutions with corrupt book keeping and securities fraud.
 
Yup. Last time it took the bubble a number of years to build (like 20?). So it's not going to be the next administration or possibly the one after that. But still, the risk of such calamity increases as long as the progressive / liberal / Democrat policies related to this are driven by their ideology and not the facts of the matter.
.

simple question eohrn, if it took 20 years why did the Fed and Bush's Working Group on Financial Markets say the problems started late 2004 when banks lowered their lending standards. you remember late 2004 don't you? Bush campaigning on the strength of his housing market and implementing his housing policies. Hey lets look at housing prices in the 4 bubble states. Not that housing prices were the definitive story on lower lending standards but when do you see a bubble based on just housing prices?

3 mm.webp

to be fair, no con has answered that question so don't think you're under any obligation to.
 
simple question eohrn, if it took 20 years why did the Fed and Bush's Working Group on Financial Markets say the problems started late 2004 when banks lowered their lending standards. you remember late 2004 don't you? Bush campaigning on the strength of his housing market and implementing his housing policies. Hey lets look at housing prices in the 4 bubble states. Not that housing prices were the definitive story on lower lending standards but when do you see a bubble based on just housing prices?

View attachment 67157658

to be fair, no con has answered that question so don't think you're under any obligation to.

I'll be completely honest with you. I really don't know a specific date when the housing bubble started. Nor do I know specifically when the market inertia and process went completely nuts with NINJA loans. Yes, the CRA hemmed in and forced banks to originate mortgages for unqualified borrowers. My read is that since some banks had hesitancy to lighten their lending standards, the pure mortgage originators went nuts and originated toxic mortgages en-mass. This I know worked it's way through the food chain into both Fannie and Freddie as well as the investment bankers which packaged up, sliced and diced, creating 'traunches' or mortgages sold as 'investments', which the credit ratings didn't understand and carte blanche rated AAA based o previous history with the investment banks.

Any one of those things or actors didn't do what they did, and the bubble and subsequent collapse probably wouldn't have happened.

It's also partially the fault for the Dem controlled congressional Freddie and Fannie oversight committees spurring them on to take even greater risks. But frankly, this was the last straw that broke the camel's back, just shortly before the implosion. Further, the Bush administration warned against further exposure to the risk as did the Greenspan of the Fed warning about 'an over exuberant housing market', but driven by ideology, the De controlled committees pressed ahead and directed the leader of Fannie and Freddie to increase their exposure to even more risk, which they did, much to the tax payer's obligation.

Who's to blame for all this? I'd subscribe to the distributed blame notion. If any one of the actors didn't do what they did when they did it, the collapse might have been avoided. As it turned out they didn't and the collapse did happen. How forward? How to prevent a recurrence to of too big to fail banks that need bailing out when they get themselves into trouble?

Dodd-Frank is a cruel joke as how well it achieves it's much publicized main objective. It's main goal was to end 'to big to fail' banks. It does not do this. Not in the least. The additional reporting requirements are such that only the largest banks can absorb the expense of the people required to comply with it, so that's exactly what we have. So now we have a higher risk financial system only composed to 'too large to fail' banks. Such is exactly what to expect from congressional legislation, exactly the opposite of what the legislators are claiming all covered over with 'unintentional consequences', which code for 'we don't know what we are doing' and 'we are incompetent' as well as 'we do what gets us the greatest campaign contributions'.

It's all quite frustrating, but yet this pablum intended for the uninformed masses are more than willing to consume it, when it's pushed on them by the liberal / progressive / Democrat agenda driven and complicit news media outlets.
 
I'll be completely honest with you. I really don't know a specific date when the housing bubble started. Nor do I know specifically when the market inertia and process went completely nuts with NINJA loans.

Eohrn, I asked you based on the graph when it looks like a bubble start and you posted that whole thread and couldn’t just say “it looks like 2004”?

Yes, the CRA hemmed in and forced banks to originate mortgages for unqualified borrowers.

That statement has no basis in fact. the same people who told you the president was born in Kenya and his BC was fake are telling you the CRA ‘forced’ banks. Also, you are equating “low income” with “unqualified”. Now I could post numerous solid factual links to disprove that false republican narrative but lets work with “CRA forced banks to give out bad loans”. who did this ‘forcing’?

CRA examinations are conducted by the federal agencies that are responsible for supervising depository institutions

FRB: Community Reinvestment Act (CRA)

mmmm, so the regulators who report to bush forced banks to give loans to unqualified borrowers. We know it was Bush’s regulators because the Bubble started late 2004.


It's also partially the fault for the Dem controlled congressional Freddie and Fannie oversight committees spurring them on to take even greater risks

sorry E, republicans controlled congress in 2003. And bush stopped the republican congress from passing reform. and that reform had nothing to do with subprime. In fact, Bush not only ‘forced’ the GSEs to buy more low income home loans, he let them count abusive predatory loans towards their goals. If you really want to know what caused the Bush Mortgage bubble, I have just the thread for you.

I still see alot of misconceptions about the Bush Mortgage Bubble and the Bush policies that encouraged, funde and protected it so I thought I would start an FAQ section. Since the resulting destruction of the housing and financial sector are still a drag on the economy today, it seems relevent

Q When did the Bush Mortgage Bubble start?

A The general timeframe is it started late 2004.

From Bush’s President’s Working Group on Financial Markets October 2008

“The Presidents Working Group’s March policy statement acknowledged that turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007.”
http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/fin-mkts/Documents/q4progress update.pdf
 
Eohrn, I asked you based on the graph when it looks like a bubble start and you posted that whole thread and couldn’t just say “it looks like 2004”?



That statement has no basis in fact. the same people who told you the president was born in Kenya and his BC was fake are telling you the CRA ‘forced’ banks. Also, you are equating “low income” with “unqualified”. Now I could post numerous solid factual links to disprove that false republican narrative but lets work with “CRA forced banks to give out bad loans”. who did this ‘forcing’?

CRA examinations are conducted by the federal agencies that are responsible for supervising depository institutions

FRB: Community Reinvestment Act (CRA)

mmmm, so the regulators who report to bush forced banks to give loans to unqualified borrowers. We know it was Bush’s regulators because the Bubble started late 2004.




sorry E, republicans controlled congress in 2003. And bush stopped the republican congress from passing reform. and that reform had nothing to do with subprime. In fact, Bush not only ‘forced’ the GSEs to buy more low income home loans, he let them count abusive predatory loans towards their goals. If you really want to know what caused the Bush Mortgage bubble, I have just the thread for you.

Hmm. That kinda flies in the face of:
A1BigCRA_121221_345.png.cms

To satisfy CRA examiners, "flexible" lending by large banks rose an average 5% and those loans defaulted about 15% more often, the 43-page study found.

The strongest link between CRA lending and defaults took place in the runup to the crisis — 2004 to 2006 — when banks rapidly sold CRA mortgages for securitization by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and Wall Street.

CRA regulations are at the core of Fannie's and Freddie's so-called affordable housing mission. In the early 1990s, a Democrat Congress gave HUD the authority to set and enforce (through fines) CRA-grade loan quotas at Fannie and Freddie.

It passed a law requiring the government-backed agencies to "assist insured depository institutions to meet their obligations under the (CRA)." The goal was to help banks meet lending quotas by buying their CRA loans.

But they had to loosen underwriting standards to do it. And that's what they did.

"We want your CRA loans because they help us meet our housing goals," Fannie Vice Chair Jamie Gorelick beseeched lenders gathered at a banking conference in 2000, just after HUD hiked the mortgage giant's affordable housing quotas to 50% and pressed it to buy more CRA-eligible loans to help meet those new targets. "We will buy them from your portfolios or package them into securities."

She described "CRA-friendly products" as mortgages with less than "3% down" and "flexible underwriting."

From 2001-2007, Fannie and Freddie bought roughly half of all CRA home loans, most carrying subprime features.
New Study Blames Community Reinvestment Act For Mortgage Defaults - Investors.com

Further, I did not place all the blame on CRA. There's a lot to go around.

Use common sense. The CRA pushes for "CRA-friendly products" as mortgages with less than "3% down" and "flexible underwriting." This starts the toxic mortgage ball rolling. Since everyone is happy to make money, the toxic mortgage ball keeps on rolling and growing in size.

Even further, Barney Frank admits his oversight committee 'was a propellant' to the toxic mortgage snowball.
Frank dropped several unexpected bombshells in response to questioning by the moderator, CNBC anchor Steve Liesman.

Asked about the government's affordable housing goals compelling Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac before the crisis to devote more than half their portfolios to riskier nonprime mortgages for low-income borrowers, Frank blurted out: "No more goals, no more telling the private sector" how to invest in the housing market.

"Barney," Liesman asked, "are you suggesting that the goals of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the concept of promoting homeownership, was something that contributed to the crisis?"

"Yes, it was, very much so — and Bill Clinton did it, and George Bush did it, everybody did it," Frank said.

But the former Boston lawmaker was quick to claim he wanted to build affordable "rental" housing for the poor, not encourage low-income Americans to buy homes, and bucked the government's homeownership drive.

"I've been critical of that," Frank insisted. "Homeownership is a good thing (but) it should not be the way that poor people build up equity."

But that's not what he said before the crisis.

In a series of House banking panel hearings in 2003, for instance, he applauded Fannie and Freddie for meeting affordable housing goals, and called "exaggerated" fears the mortgage giants were overexposed to subprime loans.

Frank also strenuously opposed GOP efforts to reform Fannie and Freddie, because he thought it would curtail their "mission" to provide mortgages to low-income borrowers. (His committee oversaw banking agencies including HUD, Fannie's and Freddie's regulator.)

"I do not want the same kind of focus on safety and soundness that we have in OCC (Office of the Comptroller of the Currency) and OTS (Office of Thrift Supervision)," Frank said in a Sept. 25, 2003, hearing. "I want to roll the dice a little bit more in this situation towards subsidized housing."

In 2007, on the eve of the crisis, he even co-sponsored a bill that would have compelled government-sponsored Fannie and Freddie to expand the supply of affordable mortgage credit .

Returning to the affordable housing goals, Liesman asked, "If these government incentive programs created distortions (in the housing and mortgage markets), would Wall Street have done quite as badly as it did in the absence of the political incentives that were out there?"

Said Frank: "Qualitatively, yes; quantitatively, maybe no. They had been pushing that way. Fannie and Freddie may have helped them do it more."

In fact, Fannie and Freddie led the subprime securities market, holding over 40% of it in 2004. When the mortgage crisis hit in 2008, 74% of U.S. subprime and other low-quality loans were on the books of government agencies, chiefly Fannie and Freddie, says former chief Fannie credit officer Edward Pinto.

After Liesman said, "I think ... we're kind of in agreement that the government sector propelled the private sector to some of its excesses," Frank conceded: "Yeah, they started it, and Fannie and Freddie were propellants. And the rhetoric of homeownership .. ."
Frank, Architect Of Wall St. Reforms, Agrees Gov't Deserves Crisis Blame, Too - Investors.com

So let's face it. While it is a nice idea that every American should have a house, there are people that haven't done the ground work, the building of credit rating, the increasing of income and assets to be able to afford one. Just giving them one via a toxic mortgage is not a common sense public policy to implement.
 
Hmm. That kinda flies in the face of:
.

mmmm E, its not that I dont believe your chart from IBD (and I dont) but its irrelevent to my point. If your narrative is that the CRA forced bad loans then its Bush's fault. they were his regulators doing the forcing. As I've proven, the Bush Mortgage Bubble started late 2004. And get this, your IBD editorial reiterated that timeframe with "in the runup to the crisis — 2004 to 2006 —"

Here's a tip about editorials, especially conservative ones and especially IBD ones. they lie and spin. Lets parse this nugget

"CRA regulations are at the core of Fannie's and Freddie's so-called affordable housing mission. In the early 1990s, a Democrat Congress gave HUD the authority to set and enforce (through fines) CRA-grade loan quotas at Fannie and Freddie"

Notice their vague "early 90s" reference. It was 1992 and it was a republican president, Bush I. And they didnt 'give them authority'. they passed a bill and bush signed it. In exchange for their below market rates, it was determined they should buy mortgages to help low income buyers. See how it refers to "low income" as "CRA-grade". that type of word play and vaguely referencing a democratic congress really works on the weak minded. Of course you didnt fall for it. anyhoo,as Fenton likes to point out and the IBD clearly stated, clinton raised the quotas. for some reason, fenton doesnt like to point and IBD failed to mention that Bush II raised them more. He did that in 2004. And thats in addition to the toxic policies Bush II implemented in 2004. you remember 2004, your editorial and Bush's Working Group on Financial Markets link I posted say thats when the problems started.

Another problem with the CRA theme is that at best,only 6 % of mortgages could even be CRA related and get this, they were profitable. But I'm not trying to disprove the CRA narrative. I'm just pointing out that if you want to blame the CRA then you should blame Bush.
 
mmmm E, its not that I dont believe your chart from IBD (and I dont) but its irrelevent to my point. If your narrative is that the CRA forced bad loans then its Bush's fault. they were his regulators doing the forcing. As I've proven, the Bush Mortgage Bubble started late 2004. And get this, your IBD editorial reiterated that timeframe with "in the runup to the crisis — 2004 to 2006 —"

Here's a tip about editorials, especially conservative ones and especially IBD ones. they lie and spin. Lets parse this nugget

"CRA regulations are at the core of Fannie's and Freddie's so-called affordable housing mission. In the early 1990s, a Democrat Congress gave HUD the authority to set and enforce (through fines) CRA-grade loan quotas at Fannie and Freddie"

Notice their vague "early 90s" reference. It was 1992 and it was a republican president, Bush I. And they didnt 'give them authority'. they passed a bill and bush signed it. In exchange for their below market rates, it was determined they should buy mortgages to help low income buyers. See how it refers to "low income" as "CRA-grade". that type of word play and vaguely referencing a democratic congress really works on the weak minded. Of course you didnt fall for it. anyhoo,as Fenton likes to point out and the IBD clearly stated, clinton raised the quotas. for some reason, fenton doesnt like to point and IBD failed to mention that Bush II raised them more. He did that in 2004. And thats in addition to the toxic policies Bush II implemented in 2004. you remember 2004, your editorial and Bush's Working Group on Financial Markets link I posted say thats when the problems started.

Another problem with the CRA theme is that at best,only 6 % of mortgages could even be CRA related and get this, they were profitable. But I'm not trying to disprove the CRA narrative. I'm just pointing out that if you want to blame the CRA then you should blame Bush.

So hung up on blaming Bush. Granted, it may have started out under his watch, and may not have been identified as a threat to the economy early on, but when it because clear that it was, there were lots of warnings from multiple sources from the Bush administration to congress. The congress, being Democrat and probably having little to no clue what the real issue was and how real the danger, pressed Fannie and Freddie to be even more riskier in their behavior. This statement by Barney Frank is actually captured on a YouTube video.

As I've said, I don't think that any single actor in the mosaic can reasonably be blamed for the entirety of the collapse, rather the blame for it all needs to be spread out amongst all the actors.
 
So hung up on blaming Bush.
I’m sorry, did I forget to post that CRA evaluations are done by the banks Federal Regulator? And if banks were forced by the CRA to give out bad loans, then it was the federal regulators doing the forcing. And they work for bush. So posting hyperbole about me doesn’t really address the facts now does it?


Granted, it may have started out under his watch, and may not have been identified as a threat to the economy early on, but when it because clear that it was, there were lots of warnings from multiple sources from the Bush administration to congress. The congress, being Democrat and probably having little to no clue what the real issue was and how real the danger, pressed Fannie and Freddie to be even more riskier in their behavior. This statement by Barney Frank is actually captured on a YouTube video.


E, feel free to quote the false narratives from conservative media but don’t make it about me when I shred it. And E, read this slowly, you missed it the first time I said it: congress was republican. And of course I’ve seen the video of Barney Frank saying there is nothing wrong with Freddie and Fannie. that seems to be the entire conservative argument. There are two things you need to know. Well actually 3 if you still think dems controlled congress in 2003

1 Republicans controlled congress
2 When Barney said it there was nothing wrong with Freddie and Fannie
3 Bush was the one that told barney there was nothing wrong with Freddie and Fannie

Testimony from W’s Treasury Secretary John Snow concerning the the 'regulation’ of the GSE’s from Sept 2003 that the REPUBLICAN CONGRESS didnt pass when Bush withdrew support.


Mr. Frank: ...Are we in a crisis now with these entities?

Secretary Snow: No, that is a fair characterization, Congressman Frank, of our position. We are not putting this proposal before you because of some concern over some imminent danger to the financial system for housing; far from it.


- THE TREASURY DEPARTMENT'S VIEWS ON THE REGULATION OF GOVERNMENT SPONSORED ENTERPRISES

Hey E, here’s some more “warnings” from Bush

Despite what appeared to be a broad consensus on GSE regulatory reform, efforts quickly stalled. A legislative markup scheduled for October 8, 2003, in the House of Representatives was halted because the Bush administration withdrew its support for the bill,

http://www.frbatlanta.org/filelegacydocs/er04_framewhite.pdf

NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Home builders, realtors and others are preparing to fight a Bush administration plan that would require Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase financing of homes for low-income people, a home builder group said Thursday.
Home builders fight Bush's low-income housing - Jun. 17, 2004

Here’s bush telling us in the middle of the bubble there is no bubble

Thursday, October 27, 2005; Page D01
Ben S. Bernanke does not think the national housing boom is a bubble that is about to burst, he indicated to Congress last week, just a few days before President Bush nominated him to become the next chairman of the Federal Reserve.
U.S. house prices have risen by nearly 25 percent over the past two years, noted Bernanke, currently chairman of the president's Council of Economic Advisers, in testimony to Congress's Joint Economic Committee. But these increases, he said, "largely reflect strong economic fundamentals
Bernanke: There's No Housing Bubble to Go Bust

do me a favor E, dont respond to me. respond to what I posted.
 
I’m sorry, did I forget to post that CRA evaluations are done by the banks Federal Regulator? And if banks were forced by the CRA to give out bad loans, then it was the federal regulators doing the forcing. And they work for bush. So posting hyperbole about me doesn’t really address the facts now does it?





E, feel free to quote the false narratives from conservative media but don’t make it about me when I shred it. And E, read this slowly, you missed it the first time I said it: congress was republican. And of course I’ve seen the video of Barney Frank saying there is nothing wrong with Freddie and Fannie. that seems to be the entire conservative argument. There are two things you need to know. Well actually 3 if you still think dems controlled congress in 2003

1 Republicans controlled congress
2 When Barney said it there was nothing wrong with Freddie and Fannie
3 Bush was the one that told barney there was nothing wrong with Freddie and Fannie

Testimony from W’s Treasury Secretary John Snow concerning the the 'regulation’ of the GSE’s from Sept 2003 that the REPUBLICAN CONGRESS didnt pass when Bush withdrew support.


Mr. Frank: ...Are we in a crisis now with these entities?

Secretary Snow: No, that is a fair characterization, Congressman Frank, of our position. We are not putting this proposal before you because of some concern over some imminent danger to the financial system for housing; far from it.


- THE TREASURY DEPARTMENT'S VIEWS ON THE REGULATION OF GOVERNMENT SPONSORED ENTERPRISES

Hey E, here’s some more “warnings” from Bush

Despite what appeared to be a broad consensus on GSE regulatory reform, efforts quickly stalled. A legislative markup scheduled for October 8, 2003, in the House of Representatives was halted because the Bush administration withdrew its support for the bill,

http://www.frbatlanta.org/filelegacydocs/er04_framewhite.pdf

NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Home builders, realtors and others are preparing to fight a Bush administration plan that would require Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase financing of homes for low-income people, a home builder group said Thursday.
Home builders fight Bush's low-income housing - Jun. 17, 2004

Here’s bush telling us in the middle of the bubble there is no bubble

Thursday, October 27, 2005; Page D01
Ben S. Bernanke does not think the national housing boom is a bubble that is about to burst, he indicated to Congress last week, just a few days before President Bush nominated him to become the next chairman of the Federal Reserve.
U.S. house prices have risen by nearly 25 percent over the past two years, noted Bernanke, currently chairman of the president's Council of Economic Advisers, in testimony to Congress's Joint Economic Committee. But these increases, he said, "largely reflect strong economic fundamentals
Bernanke: There's No Housing Bubble to Go Bust

do me a favor E, dont respond to me. respond to what I posted.

Dude, all those dates are early in the entire bubble cycle, 04-05. It was clearly getting critical just after that, 07-09. You can choose to focus on the early part of the bubble, fine. But really, the last 2 years of the bubble were the make or break. The avert or not.

I'm not reading any talking points from anyone. From my view, that's how I'm seeing it. You can like it or not. I really don't care.
 
Dude, all those dates are early in the entire bubble cycle, 04-05. It was clearly getting critical just after that, 07-09. You can choose to focus on the early part of the bubble, fine. But really, the last 2 years of the bubble were the make or break. The avert or not.

I'm not reading any talking points from anyone. From my view, that's how I'm seeing it. You can like it or not. I really don't care.

No E, the Bush Mortgage Bubble started late 2004 and it popped late 2006. Housing prices peaked early 2006 and concern about increasing default rates spooked mortgage investors. The subprime MBS market collapsed late 2006 The others collapsed but subprime collapsed first. So the bubble had popped before the dems took over congress.

The collapse of the MBS markets led to the credit crunch early to mid 2007. The Fed started cutting interest rates sept 2007 and the Great Bush Recession started Dec 2007. In case you were interested.

The Subprime Mortgage Market Collapse: A Primer on the Causes and Possible Solutions

The collapse of the subprime mortgage market in late 2006 set in motion a chain reaction of economic and financial adversity that has spread to global financial markets, created depression-like conditions in the housing market, and pushed the U.S. economy to the brink of recession.
 
So hung up on blaming Bush. Granted, it
may have started out under his watch, and may not have been identified as a threat to the economy early on, but when it because clear that it was, there were lots of warnings from multiple sources from the Bush administration to congress. The congress, being Democrat and probably having little to no clue what the real issue was and how real the danger, pressed Fannie and Freddie to be even more riskier in their behavior. This statement by Barney Frank is actually captured on a YouTube video.

As I've said, I don't think that any single actor in the mosaic can reasonably be blamed for the entirety of the collapse, rather the blame for it all needs to be spread out amongst all the actors.


Ignore the thread Troll, who can't even post about the topic of the OP and Yscontinues to perpetuate this make believe reality of his, that the Sub-Prime Bubble Started and stopped in a period of 4 years.

He'll post three basic links, The Presidents working group, John Snows one comment taken out of context from 2003 and something irrelevent about the States. From those 3 things he'll come to his very isolated and imaginative conclussion not shared by another living soul on this earth.

He's already been thoroughly discredited on this subject by numerous and better educated posters.

I've already reported him for attempting to derail this thread with his lunacy and Bush obsession.
 
Ignore the thread Troll, who can't even post about the topic of the OP and Yscontinues to perpetuate this make believe reality of his, that the Sub-Prime Bubble Started and stopped in a period of 4 years.

He'll post three basic links, The Presidents working group, John Snows one comment taken out of context from 2003 and something irrelevent about the States. From those 3 things he'll come to his very isolated and imaginative conclussion not shared by another living soul on this earth.

He's already been thoroughly discredited on this subject by numerous and better educated posters.

I've already reported him for attempting to derail this thread with his lunacy and Bush obsession.

Fair enough.
 
Back
Top Bottom